New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

wrcooper - 06:23pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15637 of 15643)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.naRUb4h9Siy.4830802@.f28e622/17333

[D]ummy weapons, and particularly the fine art of camouflage, have been around for eons in warfare....of course one sets up inflatable tanks, dummy heat sources, fake airstrips, empty tents by the hundred...as prior to D-Day....

Precisely. Look at the Union of Concerned Scientists analysis of possible countermeasures to the Bush NMD system.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=581

If you're interested, they've produced a 175-pg study that examines the issue in great detail. You'll find the link at their site.

[Y]ou seem to think it is good and necessary that exact figures of dollar amounts be published continually to satisfy your apparent desire to have complete financial information about the USA development of the MD.

That's not what I said. What I would like to see is an answer to the criticisms of the system on the basis of its vulnerability to countermeasures. A simple way to answer the critics would be to conduct a realistic test, as I have stated previously. If aspects of the system must remain classified, then at least demonstrate that the system works before building it. No other military system gets deployed before it has been tested thoroughly. Why should the NMD get special dispensation. Worse, it has failed a number of tests. When so much better measures are available to take to insure out safety and security, why spend billions on the least dependable one?

I am saying, firstly, that you have no right to know such things, and that to even publish them is a direct threat to National Security.

I have no right to classified information. But elected representatives do. Some of them, such as Joseph Biden (D-Del) on the Intelligence Committee, are complaining about the same issues I am. If they knew that the system worked, they'd be quiet about it and not publicly raising questions.

Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that if information is publicly given out, it too should perhaps be part of "strategic deception"...and nothing more...

So your conclusion is, Trust everything our government tells us! Is that it? How do you propose that we citizens can judge whether our government is working in our best interests and not those of well-connected and powerful interests in the defense establishment? Missile defense is a sacred cow of Reaganite Republicans, many of whom have deep insider connections with the corporations involved in building the NMD system. It wouldn't be the first time that the government has backed bad ideas because of pork barrel politicking.

bluestar23 - 06:55pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15638 of 15643)

rshow55:

"Bluestar , my first guesses were that Jorian did indeed have some connection with the NYT - but he's said he doesn't - and there are some good reasons to respect that - though social deception is not unknown."

Jorian is not telling the truth about his involvement with the New York Times....you've hit the nail on the head here, Showalter....

bluestar23 - 06:58pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15639 of 15643)

"Missile defense is a sacred cow of Reaganite Republicans, many of whom have deep insider connections with the corporations involved in building the NMD system."

Well, this sounds like the party-line of the more paranoid Democrats...everything in life turns out to be a conspiracy of Conservatives, but we can't tell you any details, just that "we" "know" that they're all in it together...sounds a lot like Showalter's " connecting the dots"....

bluestar23 - 07:01pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15640 of 15643)

WRC:

"Union of Concerned Scientists.."

Like "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" ...eh..? I know well, as you should, that your sources are not objective in their criticism....

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense